I think you might be reading between the lines here, clarifying my thoughts, diversification is good, controlled collaboration growing from that is even better overall
I think its best you take a good look at the BSD arena, there are multiple BSDs all living and playing well, and sharing concepts, features, code. there is nothing wrong with diversion, of similiar concepts, but there should be some "collaboration" amongst these projects, meaning dont re-invent the whole wheel, but share concepts. its not the projects themselves that are broken, its the conceptual way people percieve development, take a lesson from BSD and even m0n0wall. M0n0wall has itself been forked into some 4 or 5 other projects each with a different target audience, though similiar concepts and code could be "shared" among the projects. I find in alot of ways the linux camp in general if very forked, they dont percieve doing things together in generalist terms, meaning whats common to you all, first its WRT. second is the goal of being able to configure it, third is features. if the 3 projects collaborated and understood one another there could be a good common re-usable code base, from there is the capability to develop divergent UIs that might appear conceptually the same but have differences among them, you all need to consider your goals, whats re-usable, whats common, whats unique to each individually. I never said all come together in one, that breaks potential innovation from individuals, but it does make sense to collaborate and consider the re-usabilities of your project and how / where it affects others. its not even they all have to be haserl, or lua, a language preference even make a difference. in both flexibilities and performance, though overall one might be faster, the other more flexible. im surprised theres no python gui, or php even. people want functionality and features without giving up performance. On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:10 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 20:59 +0700, OutBackDingo wrote: > > Its funny you all speak about division, being i cant completely > > functionally use any of them that exists, being x-wrt, gargoyle, or luci > > That's exactly my point. _Exactly_. > > Here we have 3 or 4 (or more) web UIs all going off in different > directions and not one of them functional enough that I don't need a > shell prompt. > > Don't get me wrong, I applaud all of the time and effort being put into > development of FOSS, I just think that the OpenWRT WebUI effort would be > better serviced by some collaboration of resources to yield one or two > UIs that were functionally useful for the varied uses and functions that > OpenWRT can be put to. > > I'm all for a simple and advanced UI, but those don't have to be > different projects. The same framework (i.e. the meat behind the > eye-candy) can be used to provide both rather than two completely > different frameworks with two completely different lipstick-and-mascara > covers on them. > > b. > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
